3 ms·

Apologies for assuming you were talking of the US. You gotta understand that as an American, I'm used to having many of my compatriots worried about a dictators

Apologies for assuming you were talking of the US. You gotta understand that as an American, I'm used to having many of my compatriots worried about a dictatorship to come while blind to the mechanisms of democratic power. Which naturally includes a complete disregard for non-citizen. That said, the US is still one example of how surveillance doesn't have to lead overt despotism. Really, I think surveillance is essentially the reflex of every modern today, even those which now have a better reputation than the States - Canada or Northern Europe say.

Joel_Mckay 4y ago
Surveillance generally means a loss of the moral high ground, and an indication a culture has entered a transitional political period. Generally, as policy it has detrimental consequences to a culture, as corruption is meaningless when honor and respect are already absent from legal due process. Have a gloriously wonderful day, =) Tom Waits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAkZT_4vL_Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAkZT_4vL_Y
- joe_the_user 4y ago
  Surveillance generally means a loss of the moral high ground, and an indication a culture has entered a transitional political period. Sorry to continue the cynicism but what's a modern state that doesn't engage in surveillance? Here in the US, phones have been bugged by the cops at times since phones existed. And I remember in the Art of War, Sun Tzu advised his reader to essentially surveil the enemy as much as possible. Which is to say states have employed secret agents against the enemy and employed them against their own once the state grew large enough to view the people as yet another potential enemy. The one way your statement pans out is states whose surveillance becomes obvious tend to be weakened to some degree. And I'm personally against surveillance, I'm not trying to justify it.
  - Joel_Mckay 4y ago
    One observation is the lack of personal rights protecting against host-state whims is a cautionary tale repeated throughout history, and may manifest in any number of political systems. Another theory points out that democratic republics are fundamentally vulnerable to regime changes, and inevitably develops an achilles' heel that manifests as its citizens can no longer distinguish basic facts from their own fictional narratives or media. I doubt Sun Tzu fully recognized that perpetually testing fate by harassing random people was a poor strategy for survival. =)

Joel_Mckay 4y ago

Surveillance generally means a loss of the moral high ground, and an indication a culture has entered a transitional political period. Generally, as policy it has detrimental consequences to a culture, as corruption is meaningless when honor and respect are already absent from legal due process. Have a gloriously wonderful day, =) Tom Waits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAkZT_4vL_Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAkZT_4vL_Y

joe_the_user 4y ago
Surveillance generally means a loss of the moral high ground, and an indication a culture has entered a transitional political period. Sorry to continue the cynicism but what's a modern state that doesn't engage in surveillance? Here in the US, phones have been bugged by the cops at times since phones existed. And I remember in the Art of War, Sun Tzu advised his reader to essentially surveil the enemy as much as possible. Which is to say states have employed secret agents against the enemy and employed them against their own once the state grew large enough to view the people as yet another potential enemy. The one way your statement pans out is states whose surveillance becomes obvious tend to be weakened to some degree. And I'm personally against surveillance, I'm not trying to justify it.
- Joel_Mckay 4y ago
  One observation is the lack of personal rights protecting against host-state whims is a cautionary tale repeated throughout history, and may manifest in any number of political systems. Another theory points out that democratic republics are fundamentally vulnerable to regime changes, and inevitably develops an achilles' heel that manifests as its citizens can no longer distinguish basic facts from their own fictional narratives or media. I doubt Sun Tzu fully recognized that perpetually testing fate by harassing random people was a poor strategy for survival. =)